Question for all the pi##ed 3PD about Flight...

[EagleSkinner 36]

When I look at what folk like FTX are up to, I don't think the market for FSX is dying too much (MVGibbage), nor has the market been exhausted - although FTX sceneries do not necessarily appeal to the big jet fliers. There are still many aircraft that can be "done" and of those that have been, there are enough that need improvement. Even Aerosoft are seriously thinking about a Beaver remake. OK - the biggest part of the FS* market is the passenger jet sector and that part is indeed flooded with enough "heavies", after all, you only have to look at the Avsim library downloads for heavies and paints for heavies. Perhaps this sector is running out of subject matter, but small planes?Alain asks in his OP why so many 3PDs are up in arms about Flight. I would dare venture an answer here that the Flight "embargo" only really affects those 3PDs who "sell" via their own shops - and the fact that MS want a "cut" of their sales (30% was mentioned). So PMDG and FTX and co. would lose some serious profits.On the other hand - no other "private" or "hobbyist" 3PD really will lose - he already pays a similar "publisher's cut" to simMarket, Aerosoft and the likes. Oh... would that include the Avsim store perhaps? It is these major operators in the flightsim addon market that stand to lose. No I can't really say that, it's simply a market that has been closed out to them. They still have their existing markets and it is up to them to keep an active consumer interest in the flight simulation scene.Also - you must remember that MS currently have their own limitations on the market - their existing policies prohibit them from publishing aircraft liveries out of the real world. Which is why you have so far never seen Lufthansa, United, Qantas, Afriqiyah and all those other airlines represented in any MS content. Those few real world paints in the MS "library" have been negotiated between MS and the © holders - for MS to produce the kind of variety 3PDs can produce would mean that MS would have to employ a whole new department to negotiate duplication rights. So no matter how good Flight! is now, you can possibly scratch any idea of seeing name-brand commercial airliners. That leaves the FS* market still virtually untouched.Have I left any 3PDs out? Oh yes - the freeware 3PDs. These people actually stand a chance of winning with the new MS Flight market. If it has been good freeware, it will make perfectly good MS "pointsware" and thus open up an alternative for them to actually earn something.Much as the established sim community may or may not like Flight! or MS' attitude towards the sim community (whether real or imagined) there is one aspect of Flight! that should not be forgotten: if it brings folk to enjoy this flying hobby of ours, then these newcomers will eventually desire more and more functionality or eye-candy and if Flight! cannot meet this demand, it will be up to us to nurture these newcomers' interest and to help them enjoy and learn. Many posters in these fora are more likely to frighten these potential friends away.(You know - I never did understand why most FS users like to fly passenger jets around the world. If you want to be a bus driver, there is a perfectly good bus driver sim out on the market...)(Yes - I do belong to the "two props is one too many" and the "Jets whine" faction)P.S. I see there has been a flurry of replies since I started to compose this. Apologies if I missed some themes.

[maxter 0]

Devinci made an excellent point regarding freeware devs. My first add-ons of all types were freeware! It was their dedication that has caused me to get involved in FS beyond a mere consumer.

What I don't get is that if Flight is closed to freeware developers , why don't they stick with FsX? or even FS2004? or XPX etc etc etc... Why moan on and on and on about this lack of access... It really get's tiring hearing the constant carping about it. The situation won't change in the short term and possibly the mid term. What purpose is really served by the incessant drone about the unfairness of the MS Flight devs, the closed system, the small scenery area, the lack of aircraft and the lack of weather and ATC. We all know about it, say your piece and move on.BTW, this is not aimed at 321-now either specifically or tangentially. Edited February 15, 2012 by maxter

[Guest jahman]

Why are some of you so mad about Flight been closed to you (3PD), as I understand, from some of your post, Flight will be a BIG flop, so why are you so mad?...Can you not keep making addons for FSX?Why bother with Flight if you all think that it will be dead in the water in a matter of weeks or months, I don't get it......or is it that you may be secretly scared of the fact that Flight may take off (pun intended) and by doing so addons for it will be a hit and you'll be left in the dust?So, if Flight is to be a major flop (according to some of you 3PD) there is no threat to you, so why bashing the product....FSX still there is it not?

When I look at what folk like FTX are up to, I don't think the market for FSX is dying too much (MVGibbage), nor has the market been exhausted - although FTX sceneries do not necessarily appeal to the big jet fliers. There are still many aircraft that can be "done" and of those that have been, there are enough that need improvement. Even Aerosoft are seriously thinking about a Beaver remake.

As you know by now, while FSX supports every type of flying, Flight does not.That means that while the folks enjoying the type of flying suported by Flight will get a new "simulator" (with, for example, a new VC lighting model and better FPS via better use of modern hardware), those of us enjoying types of flying not supported by Flight have been sidelined to FSX and will not be able to enjoy the improvements offered by Flight.It's really that simple.Alternatively, turn the issue around and suppose for a minute Flight was designed only for jetliner world cruising and no GA anything, and only detailed ground textures within a 20 NM radius.

1. How would you feel about MS leaving you behind will we the jetliner world cruising crowd get to enjoy our new software?
2. How would you feel if we jetliner world cruisers told you lot to stop whining since you are perfectly capable of enjoying your GA low-and-slow VFR flying in FSX?

So dear Flight supporters, it's time you "got it". Please try and make an effort to understand why we jetliner world-cruising crowd are upset at being left behind while you all get to play with new software.Yes, we are upset, and yes we are being left behind. Accept that.Cheers,- jahman.

Edited February 15, 2012 by jahman

[xplanery 250]

I am not too upset about that. X plane 10 has great potential to be next serious simulator for both those who like to fly jets and smaller ones, when Flight applies to GA fliers. (and only small part of them as many like to fly near where they live)

[japascoe 98]

As you know by now, while FSX supports every type of flying, Flight does not.That means that while the folks enjoying the type of flying suported by Flight will get a new "simulator" (with, for example, a new VC lighting model and better FPS via better use of modern hardware), those of us enjoying types of flying not supported by Flight have been sidelined to FSX and will not be able to enjoy the improvements offered by Flight.It's really that simple.Alternatively, turn the issue around and suppose for a minute Flight was designed only for jetliner world cruising and no GA anything, and only detailed ground textures within a 20 NM radius.

1. How would you feel about MS leaving you behind will we the jetliner world cruising crowd get to enjoy our new software?
2. How would you feel if we jetliner world cruisers told you lot to stop whining since you are perfectly capable of enjoying your GA low-and-slow VFR flying in FSX?

So dear Flight supporters, it's time you "got it". Please try and make an effort to understand why we jetliner world-cruising crowd are upset at being left behind while you all get to play with new software.Yes, we are upset, and yes we are being left behind. Accept that.Cheers,- jahman.

So basically your argument is that the 'jet-fliers' are upset that the 'GA-crowd' got a new toy and they didn't?Are you also upset about Aerofly FS? If you are a fan of DCS Black Shark (a helo sim) should you complain that the next program they made was DCS A-10, which wasn't about helicopters? Did Fly split the community? After all, that only had a small area. How about Red Baron? After all FS used to have a WW1 combat game.Anyone but the most delusional understands that Flight has nothing to offer to the jetliner-only crowd, with no indications apart from wishful thinking and some very slim hints that it will in the future. Anyone with a modicum of empathy understands that that is disappointing. I think most people here 'get' that.Maybe you should try to get that Flight does offer something to people that enjoy low and slow GA (either exclusively or in addition to high and fast commerical) and that they are excited, or at least curious, about that and that "Whaa you got a new toy and I didn't!!!!" isn't a particularly impressive argument. How hard is it to say: 'I only enjoy flying airliner-style jet flights, so Flight isn't for me. I'm sad about that. I hope you guys have fun though.'?We are all here because we enjoy aviation and flight, are we really that fragile as a community that we're going to let something as silly as what particular program someone uses split us?Getting back to (commerical) 3PDs I'd argue that for a specialised add-on developer (e.g. Carenado which is only GA and PMDG which is tubeliners [the DC-6, J41 and B1900 also do more or less tubeliner style flights]) a specialised program split is much better than a jack-of-all-trades competitor. If all GA fans move to Flight and all tubeliner fans stay with FSX (and fans of both switch depending on their mood) then Carenado can move to Flight and PMDG can stick with FSX. In contrast if half the GA fans and half the tubeliner fans move to X-Plane 10 and half stay with FSX then Carenado and PMDG will both have to develop for both platforms.As for freeware, did Warcraft III come with an SDK? I'm pretty sure GTAIII didn't, but that didn't stop people from adding new cars (well, to be honest you could only replace existing cars, but still). The mere lack of an SDK does not make modding impossible. Until I see a definitive statement from Microsoft I'm not going to claim that freeware development will be impossible, though I will grant that based on the information we have now it seems to have become quite a bit harder. Has Microsoft released any details about the marketplace at all yet? I mean will it be invitation only or can you just make something and send it to Microsoft to go through quality control? That will be quite a crucial question I think.

[Guest jahman]

Are you also upset about Aerofly FS?

No, I don't have Aerofly and I won't purchase it either as it's not suited to world cruising (the scenery is limited to Switzerland.)

If you are a fan of DCS Black Shark (a helo sim) should you complain that the next program they made was DCS A-10, which wasn't about helicopters?

No, I'm not interested in flying helicopters because they are not aeroplanes (and have limited range for world cruising anyway.)

Did Fly split the community? After all, that only had a small area. How about Red Baron? After all FS used to have a WW1 combat game.

Not familiar with Fly or Red baron, but they sound like simulators with scant followings and probably nil in invested expenditures in sim hardware and aircraft and scenery add-ons.

Anyone but the most delusional understands that Flight has nothing to offer to the jetliner-only crowd, with no indications apart from wishful thinking and some very slim hints that it will in the future. Anyone with a modicum of empathy understands that that is disappointing. I think most people here 'get' that.

Well, the way you post it would seem at least you don't.

Maybe you should try to get that Flight does offer something to people that enjoy low and slow GA (either exclusively or in addition to high and fast commerical) and that they are excited, or at least curious, about that

If you re-read my post, you'll understand that's pretty much what I said.

and that "Whaa you got a new toy and I didn't!!!!" isn't a particularly impressive argument. How hard is it to say: 'I only enjoy flying airliner-style jet flights, so Flight isn't for me.

There you go again minimizing my needs. Do please note that those of us enjoying world cruising in jet airliners are't exactly a small minority here.

I'm sad about that. I hope you guys have fun though.'?

Did I say anything to the contrary?

We are all here because we enjoy aviation and flight, are we really that fragile as a community that we're going to let something as silly as what particular program someone uses split us?

There you go again minimizing my needs. So log-off, take a deep breath, find the source of your anger and re-assess your need to bash me, because there's nothing at all in my post against Flight and its followers. All I did was explain that the type of flight I'm interested in is not supported in Flight and that therefore I feel left behind.Cheers,- jahman.

[newthog 0]

I wouldn't call this "anger" as you say, just disappointment. I believe that many of the more emotional posts (from both sides) have been encouraged by a few trolls on these forums (I'm not talking about you though). Some people seem to have a very polarized view of things and view any Criticism (or praise) as either "bashing" (or fanboyism).So, yes, I'm not happy about the decision to abandon future versions of MSFS, but I honestly think the writing was on the wall when the Aces team left. I don't want Flight to fail, but I don't see it as a successor to FSX, which is what many of us hoped it might have been.

Great post Shaka! I'm in the "hopeful wait & see" crowd on Flight - I'm looking forward to it. I feel that there are a few posters - on both the positive and negative sides - that seem to think "freedom of speech" means it's ok to slander, slur, personally attack, etc in the name of a product that hasn't been fully released yet.If it makes sense, you did a great job of expressing your negative feelings in a positive manner - thanks!

[basys 4]

Hi Folks

As you know by now,while FSX supports every type of flying,* Flight does not.

Please stop passing-off your received opinions as being fact.Its getting more than a little tiresome,and is misdirecting this community,n.b. Hats do not taste good. :biggrin:In other postsyou've made some valid & reasonable observations,but your starting perspective's assumptions based on received opinionsrender some of your analysis and conjectures worthless.* Chopper pilots will inform you otherwise.ATBPaulFlight - Earn your wings ! :( Edited February 15, 2012 by basys

[Rush1169 0]

I truely believe Flight will include jets (really good ones) and longer routes and probably sooner than later. I also believe there will be ATC, real-world weather, AI planes, and most of all the other stuff that FSX has today. It took 25 years of programming to get from it's humble, limited scenery, low-and-slow beginnings to what it is today. However, with the Flight reboot, MSFT is sitting on a stockpile of knowledge and code, so it certainly won't be another 25 years before that stuff is seen again.In it's simple form MSFT has basically taken the sim back to FS1.0 with modern graphics. It seems logical to me that their end-target would be an improved version of FSX some day. Again, not 25 years, but much more quickly. MSFT has really lost most of it's financial incentive to continue FSX development. The problem is that it has been patched to death with each new release building on legacy code and hardware and it's reached a critical mass that it's really due for an overhaul. The time between the FSX release and the closing of Aces is when the 'writing on the wall' was obvserved as they went to work or planning on FSXI. Aces was probably saying, "OK, let's add this and this and this" and the coders would reply, "OK, that will break this and this and this and we're not sure what will happen to this and we're still running short on CPU cylces". Realizing the core needed to be fixed which will render 'add-ons' largely or completely incompatible there were some potential decisions. Rewriting the core was the first decision - it was decided that had to be done to ensure the future of the franchise - a 2 year undertaking. Once the core was in place, then they have to program all the "components" that's been added to FS over the last 25 years (read: all the stuff that's missing from Flight), so figure a year or two. Once those components are in place, we'll need to either code a 'middle-ware' interpreter to allow most add-ons to work with the new Flight-OS or we're just going to have to render the add-ons incompatible. If they chose the former, add another year or two to the development and subtract the revenue from the add-on sales (regardless of who gets that revenue, for now). If they chose the latter (which they did), they saved 2 to 4 years of development (just a rough guess).So, had they decided to "start from near scratch" with the engine, retain everything that is in FSX, and support legacy add-ons, starting when they started developing Flight, we'd still be another 2 to 4 years out before we'd have anything. MSFT would sell it for $79 to $99, some would stay with FS9/FSX (granted, far fewer this time), and XPlane would have an additional 2 to 4 years under it's belt (risk). On the other hand, they can release Flight 1.0 and give it away and cash-flow it's development over the next 2 to 4 years that it would have taken anyway (with $0 cashflow and avoid added competitive risk) as it builds up to FSXI.As for 3rd party stuff? Well, had MSFT taken the 1-2 years to program the 'middle-ware' interpreter to allow an FSX PMDG add-on, then many/most of us would not buy it again (bad for PMDG), those who are new buyers could buy that plane only because MSFT just spent $4M developing the 'middle-ware' interpreter for that add-on to be compatible, of which they get very little for their effort. So, MSFT gets zilch and PMDG get's a small set of incremental sales. The best scenerio, and MSFT is not 'dumb' to this idea, is to eventually provide an SDK for commercial add-ons (that are not backward compatible with FSX) and sell those products through it's store. PMDG wins by selling it's planes again. MSFT wins by getting a cut of the sale. Consumer wins because it works a lot better than it does now.Lastly, it would seem rather difficult to have an SDK available on Feb 29th seeing as Flight has comparitively little to 'interface' with in Flight. More logically, the SDK would be made available once all the missing components are added to the Flight engine. DISCLAIMER: Flight may never become anything more than it is today.

Edited February 15, 2012 by Rush1169

[EagleSkinner 36]

As you know by now, while FSX supports every type of flying, Flight does not.That means that while the folks enjoying the type of flying suported by Flight will get a new "simulator" (with, for example, a new VC lighting model and better FPS via better use of modern hardware), those of us enjoying types of flying not supported by Flight have been sidelined to FSX and will not be able to enjoy the improvements offered by Flight.It's really that simple.

I am afraid it is not that simple - we do not have the official release of Flight! yet... and as to new VC lighting models and better FPS... VC lighting? I guess you mean dimmable lighting - not new. Several FSX aircraft have dimmers that work.Shading and lighting? Maybe there are improvements in Flight - after all, we are up to DX11 now and FSX only covers DX9 with a DX10 preview mode.Better FPS - at what cost? FSX suffer FPS issues because MS made a mistake and anticipate faster single core processors when Intel went multicore. (I wonder if that was part of the reason for dropping the ACES team - because they missed CPU development progress?) A well tuned FSX really doesn't have major issues with FPS on anything but older PCs now. And Flight! may gain FPS by sacrificing some of the less necessary functions in the flight engine.Simulation? Not even MS claim Flight! to be a true simulation. But it will appeal to those "simmers" who just want to get in and go...But in the final analysis, we REALLY need to wait and see how Flight pans out. Not even you, Jahman, know how Flight is going to look on release day, let alone once DLC starts to flow. We can discuss the beta one day, but until then, we cannot even comment either way. I would dare to speculate that Flight! has a lot of surprises in store - you only have to look at what leaks have gotten out. I know I recently fired up my FSX Hawaii setup and am still "stunned" by what FSX on my old PC can deliver. Even if I did pay more than Flight will cost me.What we do know is that FSX really has improved thanks to 3PDs and public pressure on MS to give us those SPs. And while there are people like Sandmann, Patch, FTX, OrbX, OzX, REX, FEX and all those Avsim contributors.Have you tried ridge soaring in FSX with the appropriate addins? Believe me - dancing with the lift for hours on end while flying around very high definition Alps meshes and textures is (still?) incredibly breathtaking in FSX.I respectfully suggest that those who are dissatisfied with FSX go and learn all there is to be learned about good tuning and to stop saying FSX is dead or rubbish or non-functional. I also respectfully suggest that everyone who has anything to comment about Flight! without having tried it yet be patient and wait and see what the release version brings. Don't pooh pooh Flight! too soon. True - it will not be everything for everyone, but at least the free demo version will give everyone a REAL IDEA about Flight! potential.

[Rush1169 0]

A well tuned FSX really doesn't have major issues with FPS on anything but older PCs now.

I realize that this snippet wasn't the major point of your post, but I have to strongly disagree with this statement. While that may be the case with a default installation and appropriate service packs and sliders and stuff turned down somewhat, it breaks rather quickly otherwise. FSX, in my experience, is the least stable, glitchy, app on my computer by far. Edited February 15, 2012 by Rush1169

[Guest jahman]

Please stop passing-off your received opinions as being factIts getting more than a little tiresome,and is misdirecting this community,n.b. Hats do not taste good.

OK, so if I understand you correctly, you are saying helo pilots are dissatisfied with what FSX has to offer?Still, at this point FSX offers many more flying modes and larong-distance on a complex airliner is certainly not one of them. And that's a fact, not an opinion.As for misdirecting the community, unless you state clearly in what manner I can't really reply.

In other postsyou've made some valid & reasonable observations,but your starting perspective's assumptions based on received opinionsrender some of your analysis and conjectures worthless.

Again, can't really reply to a vague stament. Please clarify.Cheers,- jahman.

[Arwen 289]

If Flight has "cartoony scenery" what does FSX have? (Flight's scenery is MUCH better than FXS's default scenery)I'm still using Flight . . . you didn't HAVE to uninstall it, but apparently you don't like it, so that's your choice. Life is about choices. Flight is another flightsim choice, and one that I plane to keep using.

[japascoe 98]

No, I don't have Aerofly and I won't purchase it either as it's not suited to world cruising (the scenery is limited to Switzerland.)No, I'm not interested in flying helicopters because they are not aeroplanes (and have limited range for world cruising anyway.)Not familiar with Fly or Red baron, but they sound like simulators with scant followings and probably nil in invested expenditures in sim hardware and aircraft and scenery add-ons.Well, the way you post it would seem at least you don't.If you re-read my post, you'll understand that's pretty much what I said.There you go again minimizing my needs. Do please note that those of us enjoying world cruising in jet airliners are't exactly a small minority here.Did I say anything to the contrary?There you go again minimizing my needs. So log-off, take a deep breath, find the source of your anger and re-assess your need to bash me, because there's nothing at all in my post against Flight and its followers. All I did was explain that the type of flight I'm interested in is not supported in Flight and that therefore I feel left behind.Cheers,- jahman.

Ok I'm sorry if i'm coming across as aggressive, I guess the heat of the debate is getting to me a bit. I'll try to keep it in check. However I do want to ask why you feel so left behind by Flight specifically? Aerofly FS won't cater to your style of flying, and neither will any of the DCS flight sims, or TakeOn Helicopters. Yet it's Flight specifically you're complaining about, is it because it is published by a company that has previously published flying programmes you happened to like and buy?Look at your response when I asked about Aerofly FS. You didn't complain it didn't meet your needs, you simply stated you weren't interested and wouldn't buy it. Why is it that it's OK for Aerofly to not meet your needs, but not Flight, or to put it a different way, why are you being left behind by Flight, but not by Aerofly FS?I brought up Fly and Red Baron because they were programs that targeted specific sub-sets of FS users (limited-area GA, in the case of Fly, dogfighting in the case of Red Baron), yet they did not fracture the flight sim community. I'm questioning what's so different about Flight that it will fracture the community in ways those programs didn't.Finally this isn't about minimising your needs (though I think need is a rather strong word for your wishes for a new flight simulator).Saying that Flight doesn't meet your needs has nothing to do with minimsing them. I too would love to have a shiny new flight sim that will support IFR airliner flight (which is most of my flying as well), but Flight quite obviously isn't that new sim. I get you are disappointed about that, I really do, but I'm not sure what you want me or anyone else on this forum to do about it.How do I show that I get it, while also expressing the opinion that Flight looks like something I might enjoy as a diversion every so often?

[basys 4]

Hi Folks

As you know by now,while FSX supports every type of flying,* Flight does not.

Please stop passing-off your received opinions as being fact.Its getting more than a little tiresome,and is misdirecting this community

You misunderstood my OP.My ref to FSX choppers was only a minor footnote.Please go back and read it in that light.

Still, at this point FSX offers many more flying modes and larong-distance on a complex airliner is certainly not one of them.And that's a fact, not an opinion.

Thats an entirely different (mis)statement,and not what you'd said in your previous received opinion based posts.You are being offered a free game,but you don't want it,because it doesn't come with free airliners OOTB ?Who are you to demand which aspects should be included in that free game ?ATBPaul